Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Catharine J. Wise, Respondent, v. The Phœnix Fire Insurance Company of Hartford Connecticut, Appellant, 1886 — 101 N.Y. 637 · caselaw · US
General
Catharine J. Wise, Respondent, v. The Phœnix Fire Insurance Company of Hartford Connecticut, Appellant
101 N.Y. 637·New York Court of Appeals·1886·NY
All concur.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Catharine J. Wise, Respondent, v. The Phœnix Fire Insurance Company of Hartford Connecticut, Appellant.
Where items o£ an account or claim are numerous, and therefore difficult to be retained in the memory, the court, in its discretion, may permit a witness to refer to memoranda, proved to be correct both _ as to items and value.
(Argued December 23, 1885;
decided January 19, 1886.)
This action was upon a policy of fire insurance covering household' furniture. Plaintiff was called as a witness in her own behalf to prove the loss ; she was allowed, as such witness, to refer to the schedule attached to the proofs of loss, for the purpose of refreshing her memory.
“ There was no error in permitting the plaintiff, while under examination as a witness, to refer to the schedule attached to the proof of loss, for the purpose of refreshing her memory. (Howard v. McDonough, 77 N. T. 592.) This schedule, which was made up a few days after the fire, was sworn to be correct both as to items and values, and to be made up from actual knowledge. Where the items are numerous, and, therefore, difficult to be retained in the memory, the court in its discretion may permit a reference to memoranda proven to be correct, both as to items and their values. To hold otherwise might make a party’s rights dependent upon unusual strength' of memory.”
Charles A. Fowler for appellant.
Howard Ghipp, Jr., for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam]
Per Curiam
opinion for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.